Will the tea party save the Dem's?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Jim, what is wrong with privatizing SS? WHat do you think that means? Do you believe that your money will disappear? So you feel comfortable with allowing your hard-earned money to go into a pool of funds that gets raided by the Government to spend on other priorities?

 

That's the problem Jim, people aren't educated enough on this matter to have a solid opinion. Instead, the left demonizes this possibility and uses fear tactics to scare the bajeezus out of people in hopes that they will be caught like a deer in headlights and stand pat.

 

We can't afford to stand pat Jim. It's going broke AND THAT IS NOT A FEAR TACTIC. It is the truth, just like Medicare.

 

I would love to have my own S.S account, where I could see my own retirement funds and allow me to have some sort of control of how it is invested.

 

There are all sorts of ways to do this, you can have a system where:

 

50% MANDATORY go into U.S treasuries.

15% Municipal bonds of your choosing.

15% Mutual funds. Government approved. WHere you could choose from (for example) 100 different funds. With full disclosure of performance and low fees.

10% You choose which stocks or mutual funds (high risk) you decide to invest.

10% Cash. Where you are allowed to request up to a maxiumum 10% for emergency uses (approved by the government) tax free.

 

The reality Jim is that something has to be done. Also, one or two Senators are not going to be able to push through such a massive reform on important entitlements such as S.S and MEdicare, it will take bipartisan support.

That may have some appeal if I was 18 years old, but I have been paying into the currant system for many years. Are they going to give me every Penny back[adjusted with interest] and say go invest it?

I don't think so. Due to the fact that anyone who ever received a W-2 is vested in SS/Medicare, It would take generations to fix it[and I agree it needs fixing]. But simply yelling"privatize it" is no good. Give me a cold hard plan to tell me what is going to happen to MY money that the government has possessed for years.

[GG]

Whats that supposed to mean?

 

 

Ask Boomer. He'll tell you all about Scott Murphy.

[Doc]

That may have some appeal if I was 18 years old, but I have been paying into the currant system for many years. Are they going to give me every Penny back[adjusted with interest] and say go invest it?

I don't think so. Due to the fact that anyone who ever received a W-2 is vested in SS/Medicare, It would take generations to fix it[and I agree it needs fixing]. But simply yelling"privatize it" is no good. Give me a cold hard plan to tell me what is going to happen to MY money that the government has possessed for years.

What about my money that I've been paying for 15 years, will continue to pay for another couple decades, and which I'll probably never see/the full return? I'm not counting on SS or Medicare to be there when I retire in 25 years, have basically written-them-off as money that's gone, and have taken my retirement planning into my own hands.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Doc

[GG]

I don't care what their "official platform" is.

When the actual living and breathing candidate I can vote for [in this case Miller ,US Senate AK] says "privatize SS and Medicare" yes I am concerned. What about the Thousands and Thousands of dollars I have been forced to pay into the system for my now 35 year working career?

 

The problem with SS is that it is an accounting entry on the government's balance sheet. The money that you have been paying into the system is gone, as it is spent the moment it arrives at the IRS. The basic test of the solvency of the system is to do an actuarial analysis of whether the current & projected workforce will pay more into the system than the retirees will take out. Based on any reasonably accepted math (ie 2+2=4) the system can't be sustained because of slow populaton growth and faster retiree growth.

 

I don't think that anyone has espoused a total elimination of SS. The reform proposals deal with fixing one side, by doing away with a pension-like scheme of SS at a certain point and converting it into a more 401k contribution plan. Most of the changesd will affect benefits going forward, meaning that whatever SS pension benefit you have accrued to date will remain fixed, and everything else from that date forward will be based on the actual value of your government pension account, which you will be allowed to invest.

[DC Tom]

Based on any reasonably accepted math (ie 2+2=4) the system can't be sustained because of slow populaton growth and faster retiree growth.

 

Typical neo-con math. Stop watching Fox News, and learn some real math.

[Jim in Anchorage]

The problem with SS is that it is an accounting entry on the government's balance sheet. The money that you have been paying into the system is gone, as it is spent the moment it arrives at the IRS. The basic test of the solvency of the system is to do an actuarial analysis of whether the current & projected workforce will pay more into the system than the retirees will take out. Based on any reasonably accepted math (ie 2+2=4) the system can't be sustained because of slow populaton growth and faster retiree growth.

 

I don't think that anyone has espoused a total elimination of SS. The reform proposals deal with fixing one side, by doing away with a pension-like scheme of SS at a certain point and converting it into a more 401k contribution plan. Most of the changesd will affect benefits going forward, meaning that whatever SS pension benefit you have accrued to date will remain fixed, and everything else from that date forward will be based on the actual value of your government pension account, which you will be allowed to invest.

I understand the money I paid in is long gone, used to pay someone else's benefits.The trick is if we go to a IRA type system for future "contribution's" who will pay my accrued, long bought and paid for benefits? The general fund?

[Magox]

I understand the money I paid in is long gone, used to pay someone else's benefits.The trick is if we go to a IRA type system for future "contribution's" who will pay my accrued, long bought and paid for benefits? The general fund?

I can assure you Jim, if they did indeed decide to reform S.S, your contributions to S.S would be appropriated to you. The people who are at most risk are those under the age of 55 or those who are deemed "wealthy".

 

There have been two trial balloons that I have picked up on over the past few months, one by Steny Hoyer and the other from John Boehner suggesting that people who fall under the aforementioned criteria above could either begin receiving benefits at the age of 68-70 or if you fall in the "wealthy" category that you receive reduced benefits.

 

Remember Jim, this would still keep the traditional Ponzi S.S system in tact. If we had a privatized system in place, the government couldn't directly get their hands on your own private funds.

 

The left has done such a good job of demonizing the word "privatized", that many people such as yourself happen to believe that your contributions could be lost or seriously reduced. The only reason why this term "privatized" hasn't been staunchly defended is because we are heading into the midterms and that touching S.S and Medicare for politicians is a big No No.

 

I for one would love to have some control of my S.S contributions, and I'm sure there are many others who would feel the same.

 

Do you know why politicians want to keep S.S as is? Because it is a source of revenues that they can raid to pay for their spending binges. The problem Jim as G.G pointed out is that we have a slowing growth population and an increasing growth aging population. Which means that when you have a ponzi scheme, and you raid the funds and you have less people contributing to S.S and more people collecting soon the funds won't be available to pay out those commitments.

 

This would not happen if you had a segregated account in a Privatized system.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Magox

[GG]

I understand the money I paid in is long gone, used to pay someone else's benefits.The trick is if we go to a IRA type system for future "contribution's" who will pay my accrued, long bought and paid for benefits? The general fund?

 

Read up on Other countries examples.

 

Basically, accrued SS benefits would be frozen at a point in time and everything going forward would switch to a new plan. This transition would cost a lot in budgetary terms, because you would need to set aside funds today to pay the remaining retiree benefits. But the long term budget figures would be better because you would cap the exponentially increasing outlays in the future.

 

Critics of the privitization scheme point to that transition cost as budget busting, when it's just the opposite if you have a fiscal outlook that lasts beyond the next election cycle. The longer you punt the problem down the road, the worse the situation will be when you hit the wall.

[IDBillzFan]

I for one would love to have some control of my S.S contributions, and I'm sure there are many others who would feel the same.

You've read these words from me before: I'd be more than happy to call it even with the government. They can keep everything I've paid into SS to date provided you let me stop paying into it from this day forward.

[Kevbeau]

I just recieved my most recent "Social Security Statement" in the mail. You know, the "you have earned anough credits to recieve $XXXX.XX pe rmonth at retirement." They then go on to outline every penny they'e ever recieved from my income and employer contributions. I imagine the intent is to reassure people....a "look we're taking care of your money statement." All it does is piss me off.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I just recieved my most recent "Social Security Statement" in the mail. You know, the "you have earned anough credits to recieve $XXXX.XX pe rmonth at retirement." They then go on to outline every penny they'e ever recieved from my income and employer contributions. I imagine the intent is to reassure people....a "look we're taking care of your money statement." All it does is piss me off.

 

In a different era it probably did reassure people. In this era, fat chance. I guess we need to go through banking panics along with many more speculative cluster !@#$s every so many years to get that "feelin'" back.

 

On that note. The name is simply "social security."

[GG]

A bit of historical perspective

[Booster4324]

A bit of historical perspective

 

That was an excellent article.

[/dev/null]

A bit of historical perspective

 

For those of us without an NYT subscription, please provide a synopsis

[LeviF]

For those of us without an NYT subscription, please provide a synopsis

It's hard to give a synopsis of this one, it's a bunch of stuff about the Founders.

 

You don't need a subscription, you just need to register with their website. I haven't paid for an issue of The New York Times in my life, and I can still read all the articles online.

[GG]

For those of us without an NYT subscription, please provide a synopsis

 

I'm guessing you got access to the article.

 

I would pick a bone with Chernow's characterization of Hamilton & Washington wanting a bigger role for the federal government. I think their bigger fight was to strengthen the Executive branch, because they knew that a stronger Legislature would lead to indecision and paralysis. You can see why a strong general like Washington would fear decisions by committee. Jefferson on the other hand was fearful of a return to monarchy if too much power was placed in the Executive. That's what the fight was about and has continued ever since.

 

That's why I laugh that as a non-voting Senator Obama was cavalier at Bush & Co's efforts to preserve what they thought was Congressional encroachment on Presidential powers, yet as soon as he got the big seat in the Oval Office, he discovered religion.